That was actually the explicit assumption of Classical Political Economy, in its most pessimistic Malthusian form: no right to exist for human beings, except for what you can get on the market or by private charity.

Malthus:

Our laws indeed say that [sc. human beings have] this right and bind society to furnish employment and food to those who cannot get them in the regular market; but in so doing they attempt to reverse the laws of nature; and it is in consequence to be expected, not only that they should fail in their object, but that the poor who were intended to be benefited, should suffer most cruelly from the inhuman deceit practised upon them.

A man who is born into a world already possessed if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he do not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The report of a provision for all that come fills the hall with numerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those who are justly enraged at not finding the provisions which they had been taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in counteracting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all her guests should have plenty, and knowing that she could not provide for unlimited numbers humanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full.

Where do you get 5 million?Why would the 5 million be unemployed? I assume their must be a reason. What is your theory for employment in Ireland and why 5 million, why not 4 million. Please give me details on who the five million are, why they are unemployed, and how did they get unemployed.Please give me details, applied your theory to this specific case.By the way much respect to you. I have purchase Keynes return of the master and Paul Davidson the Keynes solution based on your recommendation.

Thanks for the response LK, but what I was hoping for was support for your statement “It would have been much worse.” Please explain by the deductive-nomological method outlined in Carl Hempel essay “Studies in the logic of explanation”, which I believe is your chosen method of explanation. What I am looking for per the deductive-nomological method is to explain the assertion, “It would of been much worse”, meaning if there was not a mass exit of the labor force from Ireland unemployment would have been much worst, “please define much worst”, then 14.5%.

I heard from Michael Hudson there has been a big emigration from Latvia, and I know there has been in Greece as well. Makes sense....we learned in Labor Econ people will move to where there's jobs, in a country, but makes sense they will move out if there are no jobs at all. Real shame...those who can escape austerity will, it's falling solely on the working class and poor